The problem is that it's still an open-loop system. Central banks for currencies that are well-accepted internationally manage the money supply to avoid excessive deflation or inflation, and the money supply has to grow with the size of the economy. If Dogecoin is slightly inflationary that might be an improvement, but there's still no feedback.
What's fascinating about crypto, whether you are a fan of any particular coin or not, is that we get to rapidly iterate and experiment on everything from Keynesian to Austrian to MMT to Monetarism economics to varying degrees in real-time. We can afford to try all the experiments simultaneously to see which ones succeed over the long haul.
It's inflationary (5 billion more a year), but inflation rate drops overtime, reaching 0% on a long enough time line...
Compared to USD inflation rate, this is much lower volatility, and makes it rather attractive. A good complement to store-of-value Bitcoin: has the ability to act more like a currency.
Also, error in the article: Bitcoin supply is estimated to run out in 2140, NOT 2040.
In the end, what will happen if a crypto is ever accepted and non-deflationnary, is that actor with enough credit/trust (banks, states) will start according loans, creating more money that the initial creator wanted, creating inflation.
>And are waiting for $1 and above for a gigantic sell off
That's not really how those things work. If someone like say, Satoshi, or Vitalik or another "whale" tried to massively sell their coins, the slippage would quickly deprecate the price. Sure, the first .1% they'd be able to sell at $1, but most likely they would make the price crash.
While DOGE is not directly affected (which is still down), the clones suffered a rapid price drop due to Vitalik taking >$1B worth of dogecoin inspired clone coins; causing the prices to crash. [0] Even before dogecoin reached $1, much worse than expected.
Again its not good news for the late dogecoin (and the clones) baghodlers. Oh dear.
Well, I'm guzzling Nano like cranberry juice. Here we have a currency written in C++ that inspired another group of developers to port it to Rust. That's got to be worth something. Also one of just two currencies that use BLAKE. The other is Siacoin — which I'm also monitoring, but from my experiences in the community, I feel Nano is going to massively prevail.
We already had private money creation; every time a bank makes a loan, money is created. Governments don't directly control the money supply, they only do so indirectly.
Also known as fractional reserve banking (the money can make loan more money than it has in its reserve).
If someone tries to do a bank run the fed will supply the bank with missing money, in part, because the fed was created by private banks to counter bank runs.
"And it is for this reason that although banks don’t need your money, they do want your money. As noted above, banks lend first and look for reserves later, but they do look for the reserves."
No, banks are allowed to loan more money than they have in reserves (they are allowed to have a fraction of a loan in their reserves = fractional reserve banking).
Client A = 100 dollars
client B = 0 dollars
Bank passive = 100 dollars
bank actives = 100
client b makes a loan of 70 dollars
client A = 100 dollars
client B = 70 dollars
Bank passives = 170
bank actives = 170
Now client C needs a 100 dollars loan.
100 < 170.
In the simple savings-and-loan case, banks loan from their deposits. So technically it is the bank's available capital, but the capital belongs to someone else. If the bank has $1 million in deposits, it might decide it can safely loan out $100k, which in some sense increases the money supply.
No. Or maybe in really rare cases. One man savings are really another man debt. In reality, actors that can roll their debt do so (so states and companies with enough capital as collateral), allowing common men to have savings.
